Effectiveness of endoscopy in patients admitted to the intensive care unit with upper GI hemorrhage

Endoscopic Versus Conservative Therapy for Bleeding Peptic Ulcer with Adherent Clot: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Peptic ulcers with adherent clots are associated with a high-risk of rebleeding and mortality. However, the optimal management of bleeding ulcers with adherent clots remains unclear. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare endoscopic therapy and conservative therapy to manage bleeding ulcers with adherent clots.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases through October 2022 to include all studies comparing the endoscopic and conservative therapeutic approaches for bleeding ulcers with adherent clots. Our primary outcome was rebleeding (overall and 30-day). The secondary outcomes were mortality (overall and 30-day), need for surgery, and length of hospital stay (LOS). The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with the corresponding confidence intervals (CI) for proportional and continuous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

Eleven studies (9 RCTs) with 833 patients (431 received endoscopic therapy vs. 402 received conservative therapy) were included. Overall, endoscopic therapy was associated with lower overall rebleeding (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.79, P = 0.007), 30-day rebleeding (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.89, P = 0.002), overall mortality (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23-0.95, P = 0.04), 30-day mortality (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.89, P = 0.002), need for surgery (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.95, P = 0.04), and LOS (MD - 3.17 days, 95% CI - 4.14, - 2.19, P < 0.00001). However, subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed no significant difference in overall mortality (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.24-2.52, P = 0.68) between the two strategies, with numerically lower but statistically non-significant rates of overall rebleeding (7.2% vs. 18.5%, respectively; OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.17-1.05, P = 0.06), statistically lower rate of need for surgery (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.96, P = 0.04) with endoscopic therapy compared to conservative therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis demonstrates that endoscopic therapy was overall associated with lower rates of rebleeding (overall and 30-day), mortality (overall and 30-day), need for surgery, and LOS, compared to conservative therapy for the management of bleeding ulcers with adherent clots. However, subgroup analysis of RCTs showed that endoscopic therapy was associated with numerically lower but statistically non-significant rates of overall rebleeding and a statistically lower rate of need for surgery compared to conservative therapy with similar overall mortality rates. Combined treatment with thermal therapy and injection therapy was the most effective treatment modality in reducing rebleeding risk. Further large-scale RCTs are needed to validate our findings.

The Clinical and Endoscopic Profiles of Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) and the Role of the Rockall Scoring System in Predicting Adverse Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is one of the common emergencies seen by physicians. Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy remains a crucial tool in the identification of UGIB.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to determine the clinical and endoscopic profiles of UGIB in an adult population.

METHODS

This prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted in Dayanand Medical College and Hospital (DMCH), Ludhiana, where 75 patients aged 18 years and above admitted to the hospital with a history of UGIB from July 1 to December 31, 2018, were enrolled in the study. After obtaining the demographic data, all patients underwent clinical examination, laboratory investigations, and video endoscopy. The Rockall scoring system was used to assess their prognosis.

RESULTS

The mean age of the study population was 52.19±6.65 years. The majority (33%) were in the age group of 51-60 years. Of the study population, 82.7% were male and 17.3% were female. Chronic alcohol intake was found to be the most common risk factor, followed by drug intake. On upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, esophageal varices (65.3%) were the most common finding, followed by peptic ulcer disease (25.2%), gastric erosions (2.6%), gastroduodenitis (1.3%), Mallory-Weiss tear (1.3%), carcinoma stomach (1.3%), Camron's lesion (1.3%), and Dieulafoy's lesion (1.3%). Mortality attributed to UGIB was found to be 8%.

CONCLUSION

The present study reported portal hypertension as the most common cause of UGIB, while the most common endoscopic lesions reported were esophageal varices. The factors associated with poor prognosis were age >60 years, shock, respiratory failure, low hemoglobin, low platelet count, deranged international normalized ratio (INR), variceal bleed, renal failure, rebleed, Rockall score ≥ 8, and late endoscopy (>24 hours of admission). Urgent appropriate hospital management definitely helps to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with UGIB.

Relationships of hospitalization outcomes and timing to endoscopy in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and the impact of clinico-demographic factors on hospitalization outcomes in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) remains an area of active research.

AIM

To identify independent predictors of outcomes in patients with NVUGIB, with a particular focus on EGD timing, anticoagulation (AC) status, and demographic features.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of adult patients with NVUGIB from 2009 to 2014 was performed using validated ICD-9 codes from the National Inpatient Sample database. Patients were stratified by EGD timing relative to hospital admission (≤ 24 h, 24-48 h, 48-72 h, and > 72 h) and then by AC status (yes/no). The primary outcome was all-cause inpatient mortality. Secondary outcomes included healthcare usage.

RESULTS

Of the 1082516 patients admitted for NVUGIB, 553186 (51.1%) underwent EGD. The mean time to EGD was 52.8 h. Early (< 24 h from admission) EGD was associated with significantly decreased mortality, less frequent intensive care unit admission, shorter length of hospital stays, lower hospital costs, and an increased likelihood of discharge to home (all with P < 0.001). AC status was not associated with mortality among patients who underwent early EGD (aOR 0.88, P = 0.193). Male sex (OR 1.30) and Hispanic (OR 1.10) or Asian (aOR 1.38) race were also independent predictors of adverse hospitalization outcomes in NVUGIB.

CONCLUSION

Based on this large, nationwide study, early EGD in NVUGIB is associated with lower mortality and decreased healthcare usage, irrespective of AC status. These findings may help guide clinical management and would benefit from prospective validation.

Dieulafoy Lesion: Scope it Until You Find it

A Dieulafoy lesion is an important consideration every gastroenterologist and internal medicine physician has to make in cases of recurrent, unidentifiable, and hemodynamically compromising gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. A Dieulafoy lesion is an aberrant vessel that does not reduce in caliber when it extends from the submucosa to the mucosa. Damage to this artery can result in severe, intermittent arterial bleeding from tiny, difficult-to-visualize vessel stumps. Furthermore, these catastrophic bleeding episodes frequently result in hemodynamic instability and the need for transfusion of multiple blood products. As the patients presenting with Dieulafoy lesions often have concomitant cardiac and renal disease, familiarity with this condition is relevant as these patients are at risk of transfusion-related injuries. This case is unique as the Dieulafoy lesion was not visualizable in a standard location despite multiple esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and CT angiography, illustrating the difficulty of accurately managing and diagnosing this condition.

Clinical outcomes of Dieulafoy's lesion compared with peptic ulcer in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although Dieulafoy's lesion (DL) is an important cause of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, few studies have investigated the clinico-epidemiological outcomes due to its rarity. Here, we investigated clinical features of upper GI bleeding caused by peptic ulcer (PU) or DL and compared endoscopic treatment outcomes.

METHODS

Patients with upper GI bleeding resulting from PU or DL who visited emergency room between January 2013 and December 2017 were eligible. Clinical features and treatment outcomes were retrospectively investigated.

RESULTS

Overall, 728 patients with upper GI bleeding due to PU (n = 669) and DL (n = 59) were enrolled. The median age was 64 years (interquartile range [IQR], 56-75 years), and 74.3% were male. Endoscopic intervention was performed in 53.7% (n = 359) and 98.3% (n = 58) of the PU and DL groups, respectively (P < 0.0001). Patients were matched by sex, age, body mass index, comorbidity, and past medical history, and 190 PU and 52 DL were finally selected. The rebleeding rates within 7 (7.37% vs 17.31%, P = 0.037) and 30 (7.37% vs 26.92%, P < 0.001) days after initial endoscopy were significantly lower in the PU than in the DL group after propensity score matching. During the median follow-up period of 52 months (IQR, 34-70 months), there was no difference in overall survival rate (67.9% vs 82.7%, P = 0.518).

CONCLUSIONS

Although DL is a rare cause of upper GI bleeding, it requires endoscopic hemostasis more frequently and has a higher rate of rebleeding than PU even after therapeutic endoscopy. Endoscopists should pay attention and perform active endoscopic hemostasis for DL bleeding.

Refractory gastric ulcer bleeding responsive to long-term octreotide

Upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding is a common condition that can cause hemodynamic instability and death if left untreated. Endoscopic hemostasis is often successful; however, some patients may develop refractory bleeding. Pharmacologic management with octreotide is beneficial in patients with variceal bleeding and has been shown in some studies to be effective in refractory bleeding due to angiodysplasia. There is a paucity of literature regarding the usage of long-term octreotide in refractory bleeding secondary to a peptic ulcer. We present a case of a bleeding gastric ulcer that was refractory to endoscopic management but responsive to long-term octreotide therapy.

How Can Patient's Risk Dictate the Timing of Endoscopy in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding?

INTRODUCTION

Although upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) management has improved substantially in the last decades, there is still much controversy regarding the optimal timing for performance of endoscopy. Recent guidelines suggest performing an early endoscopy within 24 h of nonvariceal UGIB (NVUGIB) presentation, although its impact on patients with different bleeding risks remains unclear.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of performing endoscopy within 24 h on NVUGIB outcomes and to compare it in patients with lower-risk vs. higher-risk bleeding.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients undergoing upper endoscopy for suspected NVUGIB over 4 years. Demographic, clinical, biochemical, endoscopic, and outcome data were collected. Lower-risk bleeding was defined as a Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) <12 and higher-risk bleeding was defined as a GBS ≥12.

RESULTS

A total of 298 patients with suspected NVUGIB were included, 55% of whom had higher-risk bleeding. Endoscopy was performed within 24 h in 62.1% of the patients. In lower-risk bleeding patients, performance of endoscopy within 24 h was associated with a higher need for endoscopic treatment (OR = 2.6; 95% CI 1.2-5.7; p = 0.004), a lower 30-day mortality (OR = 0.41; 95% CI 0.27-0.63; p = 0.03), and a lower need for transfusion (OR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.36-0.92; p = 0.02). In higher-risk bleeding patients, there were no statistically significant differences in NVUGIB outcomes in performing endoscopy within 24 h.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopy within 24 h of presentation was associated with a lower need for transfusion, a higher need for endoscopic treatment, and a lower 30-day mortality in lower-risk NVUGIB patients. Thus, performing endoscopy within the first 24 h of presentation can have a positive impact on NVUGIB outcomes even in lower-risk bleeding.

Factors for unsuccessful endoscopic hemostasis in patients with severe peptic ulcer bleeding

OBJECTIVES

Although the first approach for peptic ulcer bleeding is endoscopic hemostasis, quick determination of a hemostatic strategy is important in patients with vitals indicating shock. However, the unsuccessful factors for endoscopic treatment have yet to be sufficiently examined. We aimed to investigate the factors for unsuccessful endoscopic hemostasis in severe peptic ulcer bleeding.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Unsuccessful factors were retrospectively investigated in 150 eligible patients who underwent endoscopic hemostasis for shock-presenting peptic ulcer bleeding at our critical care center between April 2007 and March 2021.

RESULTS

There were 123 and 27 cases of successful and unsuccessful endoscopic hemostasis, respectively. Causative diseases included gastric ulcer bleeding in 124 patients (82.7%) and duodenal ulcer bleeding in 26 patients (17.3%). Shock index (SI) (1.46 vs. 1.60) (p = .013), exposed blood vessel diameter (1.4 mm vs. 3.1 mm) (p < .001) identified on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT), duodenal ulcer bleeding (p = .012), and Forrest classification Ia (p = .004) were extracted as independent factors for unsuccessful endoscopic hemostasis. In receiving operating curve analysis, when the cut-off value for the SI was set at 1.53, the sensitivity and specificity were 70.4% and 63.4%, respectively. When the cut-off value for the exposed blood vessel diameter was set at 1.9 mm, these were 88.9% and 83.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

When these factors (SI ≥ 1.53, exposed blood vessel diameter ≥1.9 mm identified on CE-CT, duodenal ulcer bleeding, and Forrest Ia) are present in patients with severe peptic ulcer bleeding, non-endoscopic hemostasis, such as interventional radiology (IVR) and surgery, should be considered.

Does timing of endoscopy affect outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The timing of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains controversial. Early EGD (E-EGD) (within 24 h of presentation) has been compared to late EGD (L-EGD) (after 24 h) in numerous studies with conflicting results. The previous systematic review included three randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the cutoff time for performing EGD was arbitrary. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies comparing the outcomes of E-EGD and L-EGD group.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was undertaken to include both RCTs and cohort studies. Primary outcomes including overall mortality and secondary outcomes (recurrent bleeding, need for transfusion, and length of stay) were compared. Risk ratios and standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 13 observational studies (with over 1.8 million patients) were included in the final analysis. No significant difference in overall mortality (risk ratio: 0.97; CI, 0.74-1.27), recurrent bleeding (risk ratio: 1.12; CI, 0.62-2.00), and length of stay (SMD: -0.07, CI, -0.31 to 0.18) was observed for E-EGD group compared to L-EGD group. The possibility of endoscopic intervention was higher in E-EGD group (risk ratio: 1.70, CI, 1.28-2.27). Consistent results were obtained for subgroup analysis of studies with 100% nonvariceal bleed (NVB) patient (risk ratio: 1.12; CI, 0.84-1.50).

CONCLUSION

Given the outcomes and limitations, our meta-analysis did not demonstrate clear benefit of performing EGD within 24 h of presentation for UGIB (particularly NVB).

Timing of Endoscopy for Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND

It is recommended that patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding undergo endoscopy within 24 hours after gastroenterologic consultation. The role of endoscopy performed within time frames shorter than 24 hours has not been adequately defined.

METHODS

To evaluate whether urgent endoscopy improves outcomes in patients predicted to be at high risk for further bleeding or death, we randomly assigned patients with overt signs of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and a Glasgow-Blatchford score of 12 or higher (scores range from 0 to 23, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of further bleeding or death) to undergo endoscopy within 6 hours (urgent-endoscopy group) or between 6 and 24 hours (early-endoscopy group) after gastroenterologic consultation. The primary end point was death from any cause within 30 days after randomization.

RESULTS

A total of 516 patients were enrolled. The 30-day mortality was 8.9% (23 of 258 patients) in the urgent-endoscopy group and 6.6% (17 of 258) in the early-endoscopy group (difference, 2.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3 to 6.9). Further bleeding within 30 days occurred in 28 patients (10.9%) in the urgent-endoscopy group and in 20 (7.8%) in the early-endoscopy group (difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.9 to 8.1). Ulcers with active bleeding or visible vessels were found on initial endoscopy in 105 of the 158 patients (66.4%) with peptic ulcers in the urgent-endoscopy group and in 76 of 159 (47.8%) in the early-endoscopy group. Endoscopic hemostatic treatment was administered at initial endoscopy for 155 patients (60.1%) in the urgent-endoscopy group and for 125 (48.4%) in the early-endoscopy group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding who were at high risk for further bleeding or death, endoscopy performed within 6 hours after gastroenterologic consultation was not associated with lower 30-day mortality than endoscopy performed between 6 and 24 hours after consultation. (Funded by the Health and Medical Fund of the Food and Health Bureau, Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01675856.).

Diagnosis and Management of Non-Variceal Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage: A Review of Current Guidelines and Future Perspectives

Non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide which is encountered in the ambulatory and hospital settings. Hemorrhage form the gastrointestinal (GI) tract is categorized as upper GIB, small bowel bleeding (also formerly referred to as obscure GIB) or lower GIB. Although the etiologies of GIB are variable, a strong, consistent risk factor is use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Advances in the endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of GIB have led to improved outcomes. We present an updated review of the current practices regarding the diagnosis and management of non-variceal GIB, and possible future directions.

Updates on management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common and life-threatening condition in the United States and worldwide.

RECENT FINDINGS

There have been several exciting recent advances in the endoscopic management of UGIB. One such advance is the recent approval of Hemospray by US Food and Drug Administration in May 2018. Another one is the emerging role of video capsule endoscopy as a triage and localization tool for UGIB patients. Finally, the development of new reversal agents for antithrombotic medications is an important advance in the management of life-threatening upper gastrointestinal bleed.

SUMMARY

In this article, we will broadly review the management of nonvariceal UGIB, focusing primarily on the data addressing these new advances.

Early versus late bedside endoscopy for gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a life-threatening complication in critically ill patients. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of bedside endoscopy in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting, and to compare the outcomes of early endoscopy (within 24 hours of detecting GI bleeding) with late endoscopy (after 24 hours).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent bedside endoscopy for nonvariceal upper GI bleeding and lower GI bleeding that occurred after ICU admission at Seoul National University Hospital from January 2010 to May 2015.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty-three patients underwent bedside esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for upper GI bleeding (early, 187; late, 66) and 69 underwent bedside colonoscopy (CS) for lower GI bleeding (early, 36; late, 33). Common endoscopic findings were peptic ulcer, and acute gastric mucosal lesion in the EGD group, as well as ischemic colitis and acute hemorrhagic rectal ulcers in the CS group. Early EGD significantly increased the rate of finding the bleeding focus (82% vs. 73%, p = 0.003) and endoscopic hemostasis (32% vs. 12%, p = 0.002) compared with late EGD. However, early CS significantly decreased the rate of identifying the bleeding focus (58% vs. 82%, p = 0.008) and hemostasis (19% vs. 49%, p = 0.011) compared with late CS due to its higher rate of poor bowel preparation and blood interference (38.9% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Early EGD may be effective for diagnosis and hemostatic treatment in ICU patients with GI bleeding. However, early CS should be carefully performed after adequate bowel preparation.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality with mortality rates as high as 14%. This document addresses the indications for imaging UGIB that is nonvariceal and unrelated to portal hypertension. The four variants are derived with respect to upper endoscopy. For the first three, it is presumed that upper endoscopy has been performed, with three potential initial outcomes: endoscopy reveals arterial bleeding source, endoscopy confirms UGIB without a clear source, and negative endoscopy. The fourth variant, "postsurgical and traumatic causes of UGIB; endoscopy contraindicated" is considered separately because upper endoscopy is not performed. When endoscopy identifies the presence and location of bleeding but bleeding cannot be controlled endoscopically, catheter-based arteriography with treatment is an appropriate next study. CT angiography (CTA) is comparable with angiography as a diagnostic next step. If endoscopy demonstrates a bleed but the endoscopist cannot identify the bleeding source, angiography or CTA can be typically performed and both are considered appropriate. In the event of an obscure UGIB, angiography and CTA have been shown to be equivalent in identifying the bleeding source; CT enterography may be an alternative to CTA to find an intermittent bleeding source. In the postoperative or traumatic setting when endoscopy is contraindicated, primary angiography, CTA, and CT with intravenous contrast are considered appropriate. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Upper non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding - review the effectiveness of endoscopic hemostasis methods

Upper non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding is a condition that requires immediate medical intervention and has a high associated mortality rate (exceeding 10%). The vast majority of upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases are due to peptic ulcers. Helicobacter pylori infection, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and aspirin are the main risk factors for peptic ulcer disease. Endoscopic therapy has generally been recommended as the first-line treatment for upper gastrointestinal bleeding as it has been shown to reduce recurrent bleeding, the need for surgery and mortality. Early endoscopy (within 24 h of hospital admission) has a greater impact than delayed endoscopy on the length of hospital stay and requirement for blood transfusion. This paper aims to review and compare the efficacy of the types of endoscopic hemostasis most commonly used to control non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding by pooling data from the literature.

Modeling lengthy work-ups in gastrointestinal bleeding

Multiple procedures and medical devices are being used in a complex interplay to diagnose and treat gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of the study was to develop a mathematical model that helps in estimating the average number of procedures to be expected in the general management of gastrointestinal bleeding. The modeling process serves as an example of how mathematical analysis in general can be used to answer unresolved clinical questions, lead to a better understanding of the underlying influences in a disease process, and provide a starting point for future clinical trials. The analysis uses a Markov chain to model the transition probabilities among consecutive interventions used to find and treat a bleeding site. The results show that starting a work-up of gastrointestinal bleeding with an esophagogastroduodenoscopy will lead on average to 2.69 procedures per patient. Of these expected procedures, 1.46 will be esophagogastroduodenoscopies, 0.69 colonoscopies, 0.25 video capsule endoscopies, 0.14 double-balloon enteroscopies, and 0.14 procedures from interventional radiology. Management chains initiated with a colonoscopy result in similar outcomes. Among 10,000 simulated individual patients, the number of procedures varies between 1 and 16 consecutive procedures, with 95% of all patients undergoing 6 procedures or less. The outcomes of the model suggest that the published success rates of endoscopic and radiographic procedures are overly optimistic. The results also point to the need to generate clinical data through future studies that more reliably account for treatment failures and the interchange among various complementary diagnostic modalities.

Primary aorto-esophageal fistula: Great masquerader of esophageal variceal bleeding

Aorto-esophageal fistula is a rare cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Thoracic aneurysm, the most common cause of this condition, will slowly increase over time and can erode the wall of the aorta creating a fistula and leading to torrential bleeding. High clinical suspicion is required for timely diagnosis as common investigations routinely done for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, including esophagogastroduodenoscopy, fails to detect most cases. The classical triad of midthoracic pain, herald bleeding and fatal hematemesis described in this condition is seen in only one-third of cases. Physician should be wary of this condition, especially in elderly patients with uncontrolled GI bleeding and who are also at risk of thoracic aneurysm. Computed tomography angiogram detects most cases and emergent endovascular repair with stents controls the initial bleeding. Later, both the aorta and the esophagus are repaired and reconstructed in staged procedures.

Epidemiology and diagnosis of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common gastroenterological emergency. A vast majority of these bleeds have nonvariceal causes, in particular gastroduodenal peptic ulcers. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, low-dose aspirin use, and Helicobacter pylori infection are the main risk factors for UGIB. Current epidemiologic data suggest that patients most affected are older with medical comorbidit. Widespread use of potentially gastroerosive medications underscores the importance of adopting gastroprotective pharamacologic strategies. Endoscopy is the mainstay for diagnosis and treatment of acute UGIB. It should be performed within 24 hours of presentation by skilled operators in adequately equipped settings, using a multidisciplinary team approach.

"First look" unsedated transnasal esogastroduodenoscopy in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding? A prospective evaluation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

With small diameter endoscopes, transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (t-EGD) is routinely performed. The aim of this prospective observational study was to evaluate the role of t-EGD for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and forty-five consecutive patients (mean age, 66±18.4 years) with suspicion of UGIB were classified a priori into 3 groups according to initial clinical presentation: (1) intensive care unit with EGD under sedation, (2) endoscopy unit with EGD under transient sedation and (3) unsedated t-EGD as "first look". Demographic, clinical and biological parameters, Rockall and Blatchford scores, endoscopic diagnosis and treatment, and outcome were analysed.

RESULTS

Unsedated t-EGD was attempted in 89 patients, performed in 52 (5 failures, 28 contraindications) and the procedure was converted under sedation for 2 patients. Based on ASA classification, clinical (blood pressure, hemodynamical failure) and biological variables (hemoglobin, platelets, creatinine), these patients were less severe than in the other groups. Pre-endoscopic Rockall and Blatchford scores were significantly lower in this group. More patients in this group presented significant cardiovascular co-morbidity (47.2%), taking aspirin, clopidogrel and/or anticoagulant.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results strongly support that "first look" unsedated t-EGD can avoid unnecessary sedation in selected patients with UGIB, presenting a low probability for endoscopic haemostatic treatment and high sedation risks.

Novel nasogastric tube-related criteria for urgent endoscopy in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Patients with active upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) require urgent endoscopy, but appropriate criteria for urgent endoscopy in these patients have not yet been established.

AIMS

The goal of this study is to establish a simple system for the selection of UGIB patients who may benefit from urgent endoscopy.

METHODS

Of the 335 patients who required emergency hospitalization for UGIB from May 2010 to March 2012 at Nagoya Daini Red Cross Hospital, 166 patients who underwent placement of a nasogastric tube (NGT) were retrospectively identified. Active bleeding on the endoscopic image was used as an endpoint that reflected the need for urgent endoscopy.

RESULTS

The ratio of the heart rate to the systolic blood pressure (HR/SBP ratio) and aspiration of fresh or dark red fluid from the NGT [NGT(+)] were significant predictors of active bleeding in the univariate analysis [HR/SBP ratio, P=0.016; NGT(+), P<0.001]. The HR/SBP ratio [odds ratio (OR) 8.118; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.696-38.850; P=0.009] and NGT(+) (OR 4.630; 95% CI 2.092-10.204; P<0.001) were also significantly associated with active bleeding in the multivariate analysis. Moreover, receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed a setting with HR/SBP ratio>1.4 or NGT(+) to be optimal criteria to predict active bleeding. These criteria were associated with a sensitivity of 64.9% (24/37) and a specificity of 76.7% (99/129) for the prediction of active bleeding; consequently, they are superior to the sensitivity and specificity of previously proposed criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel and simple criteria system using NGT(+) and HR/SBP is a good predictor of the need for urgent endoscopy in patients with nonvariceal UGIB.

Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage: Development of the Severity Score

Background

Emergency endoscopy for every patient with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage is not possible in many medical centers. Simple guidelines to select patients for emergency endoscopy are lacking. The aim of the present report is to develop a simple scoring system to classify upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) severity based on patient clinical profiles at the emergency departments.

Methods

Retrospective data of patients with UGIH in a university affiliated hospital were analyzed. Patients were criterion-classified into 3 severity levels: mild, moderate and severe. Clinical and laboratory information were compared among the 3 groups. Significant parameters were selected as indicators of severity. Coefficients of significant multivariable parameters were transformed into item scores, which added up as individual severity scores. The scores were used to classify patients into 3 urgency levels: non-urgent, urgent and emergent groups. Score-classification and criterion-classification were compared.

Results

Significant parameters in the model were age ≥ 60 years, pulse rate ≥ 100/min, systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg, hemoglobin < 10 g/dL, blood urea nitrogen ≥ 35 mg/dL, presence of cirrhosis and hepatic failure. The score ranged from 0 to 27, and classifying patients into 3 urgency groups: non-urgent (score < 4, n = 215, 21.2%), urgent (score 4 - 16, n = 677, 66.9%) and emergent (score > 16, n = 121, 11.9%). The score correctly classified 81.4% of the patients into their original (criterion-classified) severity groups. Under-estimation (7.5%) and over-estimation (11.1%) were clinically acceptable.

Conclusions

Our UGIH severity scoring system classified patients into 3 urgency groups: non-urgent, urgent and emergent, with clinically acceptable small number of under- and over-estimations. Its discriminative ability and precision should be validated before adopting into clinical practice.

Bringing top-end endoscopy to regional australia: hurdles and benefits

This paper focuses on recent experience in setting up an endoscopy unit in a large regional hospital. The mix of endoscopy in three smaller hospitals, draining into the large hospital endoscopy unit, has enabled the authors to comment on practical and achievable steps towards creating best practice endoscopy in the regional setting. The challenges of using what is available from an infrastructural equipment and personnel setting are discussed. In a fast moving field such as endoscopy, new techniques have an important role to play, and some are indeed cost effective and have been shown to improve patient care. Some of the new techniques and technologies are easily applicable to smaller endoscopy units and can be easily integrated into the practice of working endoscopists. Cost effectiveness and patient care should always be the final arbiter of what is essential, as opposed to what is nice to have. Close cooperation between referral and peripheral centers should also guide these decisions.

Risks versus benefits of gastrointestinal endoscopy during pregnancy

Although gastrointestinal endoscopy is generally safe, its safety must be separately analyzed during pregnancy with regard to fetal safety. Fetal risks from endoscopic medications are minimized by avoiding FDA category D drugs, minimizing endoscopic medications, and anesthesiologist attendance at endoscopy. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy seems to be relatively safe for the fetus and may be performed when strongly indicated during pregnancy. Despite limited clinical data, endoscopic banding of esophageal varices and endoscopic hemostasis of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding seems justifiable during pregnancy. Flexible sigmoidoscopy during pregnancy also appears to be relatively safe for the fetus and may be performed when strongly indicated. Colonoscopy may be considered in pregnant patients during the second trimester if there is a strong indication. Data on colonoscopy during the other trimesters are limited. Therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography seems to be relatively safe during pregnancy and should be performed for strong indications (for example, complicated choledocholithiasis). Endoscopic safety precautions during pregnancy include the performance of endoscopy in hospital by an expert endoscopist and only when strongly indicated, deferral of endoscopy to the second trimester whenever possible, and obstetric consultation.

Therapeutic endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Endoscopy is the primary diagnostic and therapeutic tool for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The performance of endoscopic therapy depends on findings of stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH). For peptic ulcer disease-the most common etiology of UGIB-endoscopic therapy is indicated for findings of major SRH, such as active bleeding, oozing, or the presence of a nonbleeding visible vessel, but not indicated for minor SRH, such as a pigmented flat spot or a simple ulcer with a homogeneous clean base. Endoscopic therapies include injection, ablation, and mechanical therapy. Monotherapy reduces the risk of rebleeding in patients with peptic ulcer disease with major SRH to about 20%. Combination therapy, especially injection followed by either ablation or mechanical therapy, is generally recommended to further reduce the risk of rebleeding to about 10%. Endoscopic dual hemostasis by an experienced endoscopist reduces the risk of rebleeding, the need for surgery, the number of blood transfusions required, and the length of hospital stay. This Review article comprehensively analyzes the principles, indications, instrumentation, techniques, and efficacy of endoscopic hemostasis.

Acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: endoscopic diagnosis and therapy

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a relatively common,potentially life-threatening condition that causes more than 300,000 hospital admissions and about 30,000 deaths per annum in America. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is the procedure of choice for the diagnosis and therapy of upper gastrointestinal bleeding lesions. Endoscopic therapy is indicated for lesions with high risk stigmata of recent hemorrhage, including active bleeding, oozing, a visible vessel, and possibly an adherent clot. Endoscopic therapies include injection therapy, such as epinephrine or sclerosant injection; ablative therapy, such as heater probe or argon plasma coagulation; and mechanical therapy, such as endoclips or endoscopic banding. Endoscopic therapy reduces the risk of rebleeding,the need for blood transfusions, the requirement for surgery, and patient morbidity.

[Gastrointestinal hemorrhage--hemorrhage from the upper digestive system]

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding represents the commonest emergency managed by gastroenterologists utilizing substantial clinical and economic resources. Manifestations of GI bleeding depend uppon its localization, magnitude and co-morbidity. Although endoscopic haemostasis has significantly improved the outcome of patients with upper GI bleeding, in some cases patients continue to bleed or rebleed after initial control requiaring early elective surgery in order to decrease mortality. Despite recent advances in, both, endoscopic and surgical therapy, mortality rates have remained essentialy unchanged at 6-15%.

Endoscopic Approaches to Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Treatment for most patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding has shifted from the operating room to the endoscopy suite. Endoscopic treatment has resulted in substantial benefit for patients with bleeding from peptic ulcer. Ulcers associated with high-risk stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) not treated endoscopically have 40 per cent to 100 per cent risk of continued or recurrent bleeding and up to a 35 per cent chance of requiring surgical control of bleeding. Endoscopic therapy has reduced the risk of recurrent bleeding to 10 per cent to 20 per cent and the need for surgery to 5 per cent to 10 per cent. These improvements translate to shorter hospital stays, fewer transfusions, lower costs, and less morbidity. Similar progress has been made for patients bleeding from esophageal varices. Mortality for a first variceal bleed is now approximately 20 per cent as compared with 40 per cent to 60 per cent in past decades. Rebleeding after initially successful endoscopic hemostasis is often best treated by a second attempt at endoscopic control. The decision regarding management of recurrent bleeding should be made at the time initial endoscopic control is achieved. Local factors such as experience of the endoscopic team, availability of interventional radiologists, and individual patient characteristics should guide these decisions. Failures of endoscopic control and patients with massive hemorrhage still require operative intervention.

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: epidemiology and diagnosis

Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains an important cause of patient morbidity, mortality, and use of considerable health care resources. An early and accurate diagnosis is critical for guiding appropriate management and facilitating patient care. This article reviews the most recent epidemiologic data on acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding and outlines important aspects of making the diagnosis.

Comparison of inpatient and outpatient upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Inpatients developing upper gastrointestinal (GI) haemorrhage are at increased risk of death. This study was performed to elucidate differences in inpatients and outpatients.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Three hundred and sixty-two patients who needed esophagogastroduodenoscopy for upper GI bleeding were identified from endoscopy charts. Patients' characteristics, bleeding parameters, clinical presentation, pre-existing medication, and laboratory data were compared between patients who were admitted because of upper GI bleeding and patients who developed bleeding while in hospital for other reasons.

RESULTS/FINDINGS

Hospital mortality was 39.0% in inpatients vs. 11.1% in outpatients (p<0.01). Death due to bleeding was observed in 9.5% of inpatients vs. 2.5% of outpatients (p<0.01). Whereas peptic ulcer was the most common source of bleeding in both, variceal bleeding was the most common cause of death because of haemorrhage in both. Recurrent bleeding was associated with mortality in outpatients (p<0.001), but not in inpatients (p=0.11). Rates of bleeding recurrence and need for surgery was similar in both groups. Inpatients suffered more often from renal disease, pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, coagulopathy, or immunosuppression, and were treated more frequently with acetylsalicylic acid, glucocorticoids and heparin. The frequency of pre-existing disease was higher in inpatients.

INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSION

Higher mortality after GI bleeding in inpatients than in outpatients is due to a generally higher prevalence of co-morbidity rather than a single or a few risk factors.

Meta-analysis: proton-pump inhibition in high-risk patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggest that profound acid suppression may improve outcomes of patients in peptic ulcer bleeding.

AIM

To better characterize the role of different pharmacological therapies in this population.

METHODS

MEDLINE was used to identify randomized trials (01/1990-04/2003) that assessed the efficacy of pharmacological treatments for patients with bleeding peptic ulcers exhibiting high-risk stigmata (Forrest Ia-IIb). Three groups of treatment were assessed: proton-pump inhibitors given as high-dose bolus followed by intravenous constant infusion (40-80 mg and at least 6 mg/h), high-dose oral proton-pump inhibitors (at least twice the standard dosage), non-high-dose proton-pump inhibitors (other proton-pump inhibitors dosing schedules). Mixed-effect models were used to determine rate differences between treatment and control groups.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies (1855 patients) were included. High-dose intravenous proton-pump inhibitors significantly reduced rebleeding (-14.6%), surgery (-5.4%) and mortality (-2.7%) compared with placebo, and rebleeding (-20.6%) compared with H(2)RA. Compared with placebo, high-dose oral proton-pump inhibitors significantly reduced only rebleeding (-11.8%), while non-high-dose proton-pump inhibitor treatment significantly improved all three outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

High-dose intravenous proton-pump inhibitor significantly decreases ulcer rebleeding, surgery and mortality. Early data on high-dose oral proton-pump inhibitor suggest improved rebleeding. The non-high-dose proton-pump inhibitor regimens, including a broad range of dosing, also improved outcomes, suggesting that doses inferior to those in the high-dose intravenous proton-pump inhibitor may be effective.

Risk factors for mortality in severe upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Factors related to mortality after upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding may differ in importance in high- and low-risk populations. This retrospective study was undertaken to define risk factors of mortality in patients needing endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding at a tertiary care centre.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Three hundred and sixty-two patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding were identified from endoscopy charts. Patients' characteristics, bleeding parameters, clinical presentation, pre-existing medication and laboratory data were retrieved from hospital charts and patients who survived and those who died in hospital were compared.

RESULTS/FINDINGS

The mean Rockall score was 6.6+/-1.3 with 92.5% of patients belonging to a Rockall high-risk group. In hospital, mortality was 26.5%, with 6.4% of patients dying as a direct consequence of bleeding. Variceal bleeding was associated with a high risk of recurrent bleeding and death. Renal disease, liver disease, coagulopathy and immunosuppression were more frequently found in non-survivors than in survivors. Accordingly, serological tests of renal or liver function and coagulation were more disturbed in non-survivors. On average, heart rate was higher, and blood pressure and haemoglobin levels lower in non-survivors. Heparin, glucocorticoids, and anti-ulcer drugs were more frequently used in patients dying in hospital. By logistic regression analysis, in-patient status at the time of bleeding, renal disease and coagulopathy, as well as glucocorticoid use, were risk factors for hospital mortality.

INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSION

In tertiary care, a high mortality rate is observed in upper GI bleeding. Teams involved in treating such patients should be aware of the setting in which treatment is performed and its related risk factors.

Gastrointestinal hemorrhage: is the surgeon obsolete?

The management of GI hemorrhage has undergone tremendous evolution in recent decades. Once commonly managed by surgeons, the almost continuous introduction of new technologies and pharmacotherapies has dramatically improved clinicians' ability to identify and control sources of bleeding without surgery. Although a gastroenterologist can successfully manage most cases of GI hemorrhage endoscopically, surgical consultation remains an important consideration for the emergency physician in selected cases.

Management of gastrointestinal haemorrhage

A variety of endoscopic haemostatic techniques have enabled major advances in the management of not only bleeding peptic ulcers and bleeding varices, but also in a variety of bleeding lesions in the small intestine and in the colon. Indeed, the development and widespread implementation of endoscopic haemostasis has been one of the most important developments in clinical gastroenterology in the past two decades. An increasingly ageing cohort of patients with multiple co-morbidity are being treated and therefore improving the outcome of gastrointestinal bleeding continues to pose major challenges.